A central place is the ideal place to have the options to change certain system properties. It is a brilliant idea for no other reason but for the fact that serious problems can be fixed without the aid of a terminal. That means 90% of linux users are happy

Nice idea in theory. In practice there's no universal interface for registries beyond a hive editor, and finding shit in that is considerably more painful than simply cracking open an editor on the program's well commented config file._________________

juniper wrote:

you experience political reality dilation when travelling at american political speeds. it's in einstein's formulas. it's not their fault.

You have to first appreciate this is a windows 'solution' to a windows problem.
There were and are quite a few problems with windows BUT at the windows3.x to win95 transition there were a number that were ... Annoying

1) no real way to know what is installed OR where.
Win3.x you could put programs anywhere and no way to check for prerequisites.
Today you can still install applications in windows whereever you want BUT because they go via the registry in a defined structure independent of the end users choice other applications can find other apps.
Take python modules on windows. Install python and then install a module like... numpy, it knows where the user installed python to then put numpy into the correct site-package

'Butbutbut that happens on Linux'
Yes and no. It happens because of bespoke package managers keeping a db of what is installed (mm a db where have I heard that). Equally built from source will put into LSB locations but that can be changed by the end user and thus creating a similar problem.
Then there is the increase in binary applications into Linux. Like it or not the GNU/blah/Linux lot has to accept that more a more binary proprietary application are arriving on Linux. Either the distro's wrap their package manager around each one so that its existence and location is known to others (eg acrobat reader).
But then what about Steam? The best thing to happen to Linux on desktop than anything gnu has done. The only way it works is by keeping deps and locations in its on db .... Mmm 2nd time I have heard that

2) configs.
In win3.x and before it was all INI files which had a fixed format but not a fixed structure or location. The INI could be loaded from home, application home or WINDOWS and each app could have its own structure (sounds a bit like the mess that is *NIX /etc).
*NIX at least had from the start the concept of /etc, windows didn't and was more like the town bike as it let apps do what it wanted and where. Not good for making it more user friendly or centrally managed
The registry solved this for windows by fixing its location/access as well as providing fixed key:data structure.

The *NIX etc is a mess but it is in one place. Each fine has its own format, structure, delimitation. There was an old program that tried to provide a convenient frontend to ext years ago but the variety was just too.... A well commented cont file helps as well well as man and online help BUT again not that much help for Joe average.

The registry was a good idea for windows and still is. Its bespoken binary format can make it annoying. As far as single point of failure goes.. Plenty others exist in windows and Linux... The filesystem table for starters OR corruption of the HDD where oh I don't know.. Where the rpm db is stored (been there, done that, done the reinstall). Even Gentoo isn't immune from a corrupt filesystem or a destroyed /var/db/pkg...

That aside I'm not saying it should come to Linux, just the concept is sound.

Something is going to have to be done to assist the integration of proprietary software in Linux without causing the like of so hell or lost applications. Maybe some form of reg would help, who knows_________________The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter
Great Britain is a republic, with a hereditary president, while the United States is a monarchy with an elective king

A central place is the ideal place to have the options to change certain system properties. It is a brilliant idea for no other reason but for the fact that serious problems can be fixed without the aid of a terminal. That means 90% of linux users are happy

the fact that problems can be created with a single click, problems that can not be solved without 'registry' forensics, makes this 'concept' and instant failure.

There is a central place to change system properties:
/etc

and there is a central place for user settings:
$HOME_________________Study finds stunning lack of racial, gender, and economic diversity among middle-class white males

You have to first appreciate this is a windows 'solution' to a windows problem.
There were and are quite a few problems with windows BUT at the windows3.x to win95 transition there were a number that were ... Annoying

1) no real way to know what is installed OR where.
Win3.x you could put programs anywhere and no way to check for prerequisites.
Today you can still install applications in windows whereever you want BUT because they go via the registry in a defined structure independent of the end users choice other applications can find other apps.
Take python modules on windows. Install python and then install a module like... numpy, it knows where the user installed python to then put numpy into the correct site-package

'Butbutbut that happens on Linux'
Yes and no. It happens because of bespoke package managers keeping a db of what is installed (mm a db where have I heard that). Equally built from source will put into LSB locations but that can be changed by the end user and thus creating a similar problem.
Then there is the increase in binary applications into Linux. Like it or not the GNU/blah/Linux lot has to accept that more a more binary proprietary application are arriving on Linux. Either the distro's wrap their package manager around each one so that its existence and location is known to others (eg acrobat reader).
But then what about Steam? The best thing to happen to Linux on desktop than anything gnu has done. The only way it works is by keeping deps and locations in its on db .... Mmm 2nd time I have heard that

2) configs.
In win3.x and before it was all INI files which had a fixed format but not a fixed structure or location. The INI could be loaded from home, application home or WINDOWS and each app could have its own structure (sounds a bit like the mess that is *NIX /etc).
*NIX at least had from the start the concept of /etc, windows didn't and was more like the town bike as it let apps do what it wanted and where. Not good for making it more user friendly or centrally managed
The registry solved this for windows by fixing its location/access as well as providing fixed key:data structure.

The *NIX etc is a mess but it is in one place. Each fine has its own format, structure, delimitation. There was an old program that tried to provide a convenient frontend to ext years ago but the variety was just too.... A well commented cont file helps as well well as man and online help BUT again not that much help for Joe average.

The registry was a good idea for windows and still is. Its bespoken binary format can make it annoying. As far as single point of failure goes.. Plenty others exist in windows and Linux... The filesystem table for starters OR corruption of the HDD where oh I don't know.. Where the rpm db is stored (been there, done that, done the reinstall). Even Gentoo isn't immune from a corrupt filesystem or a destroyed /var/db/pkg...

That aside I'm not saying it should come to Linux, just the concept is sound.

Something is going to have to be done to assist the integration of proprietary software in Linux without causing the like of so hell or lost applications. Maybe some form of reg would help, who knows

Okay, I think you're right about the package manager side of things. Maybe that needs to be a database, because there are some non-hierarchical relationships there. I'm not convinced about the configuration side. But, I suppose it makes sense to do them together.

Maybe the problems Windows has had are related to their installation model. They don't use a single "package manager" but a bunch of different installers that 3rd parties put together. Maybe if they had a single package manager and somehow compelled developers to channel their applications through it, such problems would go away.

I do think they way they've done it, it's too hard for users to modify their configuration, and it's kind of a pain in the ass for developers, too, because they've got to build a graphical configuration utility into every application (which is highly redundant, and like having dozens of different installers, likely to create problems in the registry data).

Last edited by Bones McCracker on Sun Aug 25, 2013 10:03 am; edited 3 times in total

Communism is good in theory, what's your point?
MS fucked up the deployment of it. I'm not saying 'windows registry' (quotes added for clear delimitation due to the existence of cherry picking quoter's) is good, but the principle of a registry is. Gconf/dconf went the other way with full retard with billions of XML files dotted all over the place while moving more and more UI options from specific ui's to gconf (again derp)

Windows had nothing like a central db of applications which modern Linux distro's have starting with deb and rpm and advancing further with decent dependency resolving with yum,emerge...
The registry was a great step for windows but there are issues with it and now ms are stuck with them_________________The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter
Great Britain is a republic, with a hereditary president, while the United States is a monarchy with an elective king

My point is that I don't want to see the same kinds of problems in Linux. You've mostly convinced me that we wouldn't necessarily have them. But then I look at things like gconf and etcd, and I realize that you're probably more wrong than right.

But for it to be right a problem had to exist. And equally I never said Linux needed it
Windows had some major scaling issues and a central register had the potential to solve it. It did ... Sort of.

Now is a register-like system needed for Linux? Each distro already has a db for installed applications, their location and dependencies soo that side of the registry is not needed.
Linux also has /etc for a central config location so again that not needed

However... For proprietary applications to co-exist with other proprietary apps and a Foss system, some means for such apps to query what exists and where is going to be needed at some point. One of the kits provides hooks that other apps can install system deps.

Steam for Linux manages it by essentially creating a sandbox system within the Linux system and then provides all that. Nasty way to go for proprietary applications. Right now proprietary applications on Linux are like applications on win3.x being self contained and can be dropped anywhere (we just tend to drop them in /opt_________________The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter
Great Britain is a republic, with a hereditary president, while the United States is a monarchy with an elective king

I think you are forgetting what etcd was designed for. It was developed for IaasS project CoreOS, nobody thought of putting it on end-user's laptops. Unless those were company laptops in some given developer environment.

The same could be said about systemd, it's more oriented at IaaS. No surprise, it's developed at RH. In general Linux core projects are being influenced a lot by IaaS contributors and instead of separating such contributions they just get merged because there's not enough people to maintain two separate branches.

In the Linux world it's up to the distributions to package a system for either a more server/IaaS environment, or individual end-users. If one attempts to use either in the other environment, it will have drawbacks (individual users will notice unnecessary system load and the additional connectivity is a potential security hazard). Gentoo will have a hard time with this, because it puts this decision on the end-user and the average gentooligan will expect to have that choice, which will be hard to maintain transparently.

I think you are forgetting what etcd was designed for. It was developed for IaasS project CoreOS, nobody thought of putting it on end-user's laptops. Unless those were company laptops in some given developer environment.

Yes, but I'm predicting that it's only a matter of time before borgd.. er... that is, systemd... assimilates it or something like it.

Don't forget that by far and away most linux implementations today are highly packaged with little user configuration (all the smartphones, tablets, network devices, embedded controllers, and even most virtual machine appliances -- collectively they probably account for about 98% of live linux systems).

This also mirrors what's happened with Windows and its registry. Most of that shit the user never sees. Most of it is stuff that only developers and administrators are even aware of. How many end users do you know who use a registry editor, the local group policy editor, or any of the myriad management console snap-ins?

Not many, because most computer users aren't like us. They don't want to mess with that stuff. They just want it to work.

Hell, even most Ubuntu users are more concerned about what color their desktop is and what it looks like than anything else, which is why we have about two dozen alleged "distributions" that are basically Ubunutu that looks a little different.

Hell, even most Ubuntu users are more concerned about what color their desktop is and what it looks like than anything else, which is why we have about two dozen alleged "distributions" that are basically Ubunutu that looks a little different.

True, true. I ever touched a regedit if something was broken and had to be removed manually._________________“If You Meet the Buddha on the Road, Kill Him”